Coastal Agro Industries Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs, Central ...

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 23/2013(G) CE dated 15/04/2013 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax (Appeals), GUNTUR.]

For approval and signature:

HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? No 3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order? Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? Yes

COASTAL AGRO INDUSTRIES LTD MANDAPAKA TENUKU (PO) WEST GODAVARI DIST. AP Appellant(s)

Versus

Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax GUNTUR P.B.NO. 331, C.R.BUILDING, KANNAVARI THOTA, GUNTUR, - 520004 ANDHRA PRADESH Respondent(s)

Appearance:

None CH.VENKATESWARA RAO ADV H.NO.5-21-104, 2/18, BRODIPET, GUNTUR-522022-AP For the Appellant

Mr. N. Jagadish, Superintendent (AR) For the Respondent

Date of Hearing: 03/08/2015

Date of Decision: 03/08/2015

CORAM:

HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Final Order No. 21758 / 2015

Per : ARCHANA WADHWA

Nobody appeared for the appellant. Accordingly I have heard the learned DR Shri N. Jagadish, Superintendent.

2. As per facts on record, the appellant, vide Misc. Order No.27989/2013 dated 29.11.2013 was directed to deposit the entire confirmed CENVAT credit of Rs.7.5 lakhs within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of the order. The said order was put to challenge before the Honble High Court of Karnataka who vide their order dated 31.12.2013, set aside the same and remanded the matter for reconsideration of the stay petition, on the ground of financial hardship. Accordingly, present miscellaneous application stands filed by the appellant, enclosing therewith the Profit and Loss account showing loss to the extent of Rs.55 lakhs.

3. After hearing the learned AR, I find that the dispute relates to the denial of CENVAT credit of duty in respect of various iron and steel items, by following the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Vandana Global Pvt. Ltd.: 2010-TIOL-624-CESTAT-DEL.-LB. However, the appellants have claimed that these items have not been used as supporting structural but the same stands used in the manufacture of storage tanks and the other capital goods, in which case the CENVAT credit is available, even in terms of the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal. They have also placed on record their Chartered Engineers certificate.

4. Inasmuch as the dispute relates to the factual position, I am of the considered opinion that the matter requires to go back. Accordingly after grant of stay, I decide the appeal itself and set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to original adjudicating authority for examination of the above plea of the appellant.

Stay petition as also appeal gets disposed of in above manner.

(Operative portion of the order was pronounced in open court on 3.8.2015.)

ARCHANA WADHWA JUDICIAL MEMBER

rv

2